Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

[BlueGin]

Paddy Murphy would totally get a vasectomy done by an untrained worker at a clinic that was hired to mop floors.

 

[koshergrl]

Dude, if I gave a damn what some hateful old troll like you thought it might matter but I don't so it doesn't. Understand this

You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.

Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?

Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond. Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those. You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not. To you, because you think it, it is true. You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.

Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.

Paddy is undoubtedly still a virgin

Let's hope so.

 

[sakinago]

Dude, if I gave a damn what some hateful old troll like you thought it might matter but I don't so it doesn't. Understand this

You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.

Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?

Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond. Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those. You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not. To you, because you think it, it is true. You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.

Here's an intellectual question I've been asking over and over, what's the difference between terminating a fetus on the outside as opposed to inside? No one seems to be addressing that, that seems like an intellectual debate to be had and it deals heavily with abortion law so why not talk about that

There is no difference. It's murder no matter how old.

But I want paddy to answer, I'm obviously too motivated by racism, hate, Jesus, and my furors of the right wing, to be able be intellectual. So I need someone smarter to tell me

 

[Dragonlady]

So, you missed the part where you are a hypocrite?

Dude, if I gave a damn what some hateful old troll like you thought it might matter but I don't so it doesn't. Understand this

You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.

Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?

Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond. Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those. You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not. To you, because you think it, it is true. You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.

Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.

Why do you continue to post lies? Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.

Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion? If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?

 

[sakinago]

Dude, if I gave a damn what some hateful old troll like you thought it might matter but I don't so it doesn't. Understand this

You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.

Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?

Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond. Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those. You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not. To you, because you think it, it is true. You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.

Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.

Why do you continue to post lies? Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.

Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion? If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?

Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life. This seems to be the topic that pro-choice has to avoid at all costs.

 

[Care4all]

Life begins... at the beginning I suppose?

So from the moment the egg attaches to the uterus, and pregnancy takes place, there is a bun in the oven. (yes, I understand that without conception, pregnancy could not even take place, but a lot of fertilized eggs do not impregnate women, for natural causes....so to me life begins when the bun is in the oven, when a woman becomes pregnant with the fertilized egg being attached to the mother, successfully)

It is life, but it is not a life that can survive on it's own, it is a life that depends on its host, to survive and is not a viable life where the State should have interest in knowing what is of the citizen's private matters........ is what the supreme court decision said. So when the growing fetus, becomes viable, is when it can survive being birthed and live on its own, without the mother....with medical machines like incubators etc are fine... Up until that point, The SC said the State Governments, should have no interest in this matter and should allow its citizens this personal privacy.

Adam was formed, and then he had life when God BREATHED life in to him...could mean Adam existed when being formed by God, but Adam did NOT have "life" until he took his first breath and generally speaking, this is when society has accepted when life begins, in a legal sense....a birth certificate was not given for a newborn unless they took their first breath, for the longest of times....I am not certain if it is still this way today? ...but if the baby did not take it's first breath, then it was a Stillborn child... a child delivered dead.

The issue is not what is right or wrong according to the law or to morality or to our Religions, and I don't think the SC, when they made this decision was saying for everyone to now run off and get pregnant so they can get an abortion....just that we, as human beings, and as citizens, have the right to handle our own private issues, without the State government coming in and trying to take that very personal private matter, away from us and in to their hands, the hands of the government, until the State government has an interest in the matter....the SC said that is when the baby can live without the use of the mother's body, then the State can come in and make decisions on behalf of the living baby or more defined, the capable of living outside of the womb, baby....a viable fetus.

 

[evince]

Life begins... at the beginning I suppose?

So from the moment the egg attaches to the uterus, and pregnancy takes place, there is a bun in the oven. (yes, I understand that without conception, pregnancy could not even take place, but a lot of fertilized eggs do not impregnate women, for natural causes....so to me life begins when the bun is in the oven, when a woman becomes pregnant with the fertilized egg being attached to the mother, successfully)

It is life, but it is not a life that can survive on it's own, it is a life that depends on its host, to survive and is not a viable life where the State should have interest in knowing what is of the citizen's private matters........ is what the supreme court decision said. So when the growing fetus, becomes viable, is when it can survive being birthed and live on its own, without the mother....with medical machines like incubators etc are fine... Up until that point, The SC said the State Governments, should have no interest in this matter and should allow its citizens this personal privacy.

Adam was formed, and then he had life when God BREATHED life in to him...could mean Adam existed when being formed by God, but Adam did NOT have "life" until he took his first breath and generally speaking, this is when society has accepted when life begins, in a legal sense....a birth certificate was not given for a newborn unless they took their first breath, for the longest of times....I am not certain if it is still this way today? ...but if the baby did not take it's first breath, then it was a Stillborn child... a child delivered dead.

The issue is not what is right or wrong according to the law or to morality or to our Religions, and I don't think the SC, when they made this decision was saying for everyone pregnant to now run off and get pregnant so they can get an abortion....just that we, as human beings, and as citizens, have the right to handle our own private issues, without the State government coming in and trying to take that very personal private matter, away from us and in to their hands, the hands of the government, until the State government has an interest in the matter....the SC said that is when the baby can live without the use of the mother's body, then the State can come in and make decisions on behalf of the living baby or more defined, the capable of living outside of the womb, baby....a viable fetus.

well said..... you are the best care4all

 

[Dragonlady]

The Bible says that life begins when the soul enters the body, at birth. One of the signs of the Apocalypse is that the Well of Souls will be empty and a child will be born without a soul.

 

[sakinago]

You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.

Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?

Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond. Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those. You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not. To you, because you think it, it is true. You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.

Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.

Why do you continue to post lies? Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.

Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion? If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?

Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life

You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.

Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?

Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond. Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those. You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not. To you, because you think it, it is true. You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.

Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.

Why do you continue to post lies? Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.

Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion? If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?

Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life

Life begins... at the beginning I suppose?

So from the moment the egg attaches to the uterus, and pregnancy takes place, there is a bun in the oven. (yes, I understand that without conception, pregnancy could not even take place, but a lot of fertilized eggs do not impregnate women, for natural causes....so to me life begins when the bun is in the oven, when a woman becomes pregnant with the fertilized egg being attached to the mother, successfully)

It is life, but it is not a life that can survive on it's own, it is a life that depends on its host, to survive and is not a viable life where the State should have interest in knowing what is of the citizen's private matters........ is what the supreme court decision said. So when the growing fetus, becomes viable, is when it can survive being birthed and live on its own, without the mother....with medical machines like incubators etc are fine... Up until that point, The SC said the State Governments, should have no interest in this matter and should allow its citizens this personal privacy.

Adam was formed, and then he had life when God BREATHED life in to him...could mean Adam existed when being formed by God, but Adam did NOT have "life" until he took his first breath and generally speaking, this is when society has accepted when life begins, in a legal sense....a birth certificate was not given for a newborn unless they took their first breath, for the longest of times....I am not certain if it is still this way today? ...but if the baby did not take it's first breath, then it was a Stillborn child... a child delivered dead.

The issue is not what is right or wrong according to the law or to morality or to our Religions, and I don't think the SC, when they made this decision was saying for everyone to now run off and get pregnant so they can get an abortion....just that we, as human beings, and as citizens, have the right to handle our own private issues, without the State government coming in and trying to take that very personal private matter, away from us and in to their hands, the hands of the government, until the State government has an interest in the matter....the SC said that is when the baby can live without the use of the mother's body, then the State can come in and make decisions on behalf of the living baby or more defined, the capable of living outside of the womb, baby....a viable fetus.

finally an actual consversation on this matter, thank you! And I would say to you that the argument for viability breaks down in two ways. One being that viability is quickly changing, and we Are getting better and better at allowing pre-mature births to survive. So the age of viability is getting younger and younger. Secondly the definition viability can reach much broader than what your thinking. A newborn is not viable without a host, it still needs the nutrition and antibodies and fluids, not to mention security provided by that host...wether or not it's through an umbilical cord in the womb, or a teat outside of the womb. So what is viability? Is it when the baby is able to breath on it's own. I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you mean by viability. But then viability becomes a question of when lungs are able to respirate and exchange gases with air. A fetus still exchanges gases, even when lungs are not developed, it's just done through the mothers blood stream, the gas exchange is happening on it's own though. A fetus in the second trimester is still able to breath air and exchange gases, but not a level that could sustain it without help. Some babies that come to turn and a birthed are not able exchange gases on their own. So does that baby lose it's viability?

You already admit that yes this is life, but when does it get protection as life? There are plenty among us who are not viable on their own, see terry chaivo, does that mean we have the power to terminate. Based on our ever changing and multiple definitions of viability? We are coming clothes to inventing an artificial womb, and growing fetuses outside if the womb, when that happens does abortion become illegal bc it would no longer need a host? So what is your current and I hope long standing definition of viability

 

[evince]

there are many beliefs in this world

why only one source to decide it for EVERYONE?

 

[koshergrl]

The Bible says that life begins when the soul enters the body, at birth. One of the signs of the Apocalypse is that the Well of Souls will be empty and a child will be born without a soul.

How odd that God said he knew Jeremiah before he was formed, then.

 

[sakinago]

there are many beliefs in this world

why only one source to decide it for EVERYONE?

I'm not citing any source other than the thought that human life needs to be protected, because when we devalue human life of the unseen, our enemies, those we consider below us, or across an ocean we fall onto a path of the less of them out there the better for me, which leads to many many bad things. Atrocities that normal people like you and me rationalize and commit bc we consider them now moral to do

 

[koshergrl]

The baby killers continue to ignore the fact that this isn't a discussion of whether or not babykilling is cool. The issue here is did the doc break the law when she altered procedures to accommodate harvest of dead babies. And she did. At least, she said she did. In great and charming detail. She put women in danger to perform illegal procedures for money. That is, of course, the textbook definition of PP. Killing babies and abusing women for money. Awesome.

 

[evince]

yes we need to value female bodies and their choices for there own bodies

 

[evince]

The baby killers continue to ignore the fact that this isn't a discussion of whether or not babykilling is cool. The issue here is did the doc break the law when she altered procedures to accommodate harvest of dead babies. And she did. At least, she said she did. In great and charming detail. She put women in danger to perform illegal procedures for money. That is, of course, the textbook definition of PP. Killing babies and abusing women for money. Awesome.

so you tried and convicted her already?

 

[koshergrl]

The baby killers continue to ignore the fact that this isn't a discussion of whether or not babykilling is cool. The issue here is did the doc break the law when she altered procedures to accommodate harvest of dead babies. And she did. At least, she said she did. In great and charming detail. She put women in danger to perform illegal procedures for money. That is, of course, the textbook definition of PP. Killing babies and abusing women for money. Awesome.

so you tried and convicted her already?

Yawn. Now you're boring. Keep trying to divert.

 

[sakinago]

yes we need to value female bodies and their choices for there own bodies

But what about the body of the fetus? It's a separate entity of the mother, and why does that argument suddenly change at the third trimester, or when the fetus is wanted and a drunk driver hits a pregnant women in the first trimester and that fetus dies, then that becomes murder.

 

[Care4all]

Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?

Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond. Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those. You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not. To you, because you think it, it is true. You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.

Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.

Why do you continue to post lies? Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.

Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion? If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?

Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life

Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?

Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond. Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those. You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not. To you, because you think it, it is true. You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.

Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.

Why do you continue to post lies? Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.

Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion? If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?

Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life

Life begins... at the beginning I suppose?

So from the moment the egg attaches to the uterus, and pregnancy takes place, there is a bun in the oven. (yes, I understand that without conception, pregnancy could not even take place, but a lot of fertilized eggs do not impregnate women, for natural causes....so to me life begins when the bun is in the oven, when a woman becomes pregnant with the fertilized egg being attached to the mother, successfully)

It is life, but it is not a life that can survive on it's own, it is a life that depends on its host, to survive and is not a viable life where the State should have interest in knowing what is of the citizen's private matters........ is what the supreme court decision said. So when the growing fetus, becomes viable, is when it can survive being birthed and live on its own, without the mother....with medical machines like incubators etc are fine... Up until that point, The SC said the State Governments, should have no interest in this matter and should allow its citizens this personal privacy.

Adam was formed, and then he had life when God BREATHED life in to him...could mean Adam existed when being formed by God, but Adam did NOT have "life" until he took his first breath and generally speaking, this is when society has accepted when life begins, in a legal sense....a birth certificate was not given for a newborn unless they took their first breath, for the longest of times....I am not certain if it is still this way today? ...but if the baby did not take it's first breath, then it was a Stillborn child... a child delivered dead.

The issue is not what is right or wrong according to the law or to morality or to our Religions, and I don't think the SC, when they made this decision was saying for everyone to now run off and get pregnant so they can get an abortion....just that we, as human beings, and as citizens, have the right to handle our own private issues, without the State government coming in and trying to take that very personal private matter, away from us and in to their hands, the hands of the government, until the State government has an interest in the matter....the SC said that is when the baby can live without the use of the mother's body, then the State can come in and make decisions on behalf of the living baby or more defined, the capable of living outside of the womb, baby....a viable fetus.

finally an actual consversation on this matter, thank you! And I would say to you that the argument for viability breaks down in two ways. One being that viability is quickly changing, and we Are getting better and better at allowing pre-mature births to survive. So the age of viability is getting younger and younger. Secondly the definition viability can reach much broader than what your thinking. A newborn is not viable without a host, it still needs the nutrition and antibodies and fluids, not to mention security provided by that host...wether or not it's through an umbilical cord in the womb, or a teat outside of the womb. So what is viability? Is it when the baby is able to breath on it's own. I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you mean by viability. But then viability becomes a question of when lungs are able to respirate and exchange gases with air. A fetus still exchanges gases, even when lungs are not developed, it's just done through the mothers blood stream, the gas exchange is happening on it's own though. A fetus in the second trimester is still able to breath air and exchange gases, but not a level that could sustain it without help. Some babies that come to turn and a birthed are not able exchange gases on their own. So does that baby lose it's viability?

You already admit that yes this is life, but when does it get protection as life? There are plenty among us who are not viable on their own, see terry chaivo, does that mean we have the power to terminate. Based on our ever changing and multiple definitions of viability? We are coming clothes to inventing an artificial womb, and growing fetuses outside if the womb, when that happens does abortion become illegal bc it would no longer need a host? So what is your current and I hope long standing definition of viability

As you said, our medical abilities to save a premature child's life have improved greatly over the decades, with more improvements to come, bringing the old thought of 26-28 weeks of gestation being the age where fetuses can survive, is down to 24 week preemies surviving outside of the womb and maybe even a 22-23 week baby has survived as well, if memory serves me....and survival rates will improve in time.

As far as other life support, from machines or bottles, or intravenously, that is support outside of the mother being a host....and breast feeding, although good for babies to build up antibodies, it is not necessary for the child to survive...if the mother died in child birth as an example, or the mother was on Chemo to treat a cancer she developed while pregnant.....

so whatever the point of viability may be, and this can change over the decades with improvements, the State can get involved with a citizen's private matter, at this point, is my understanding of the SC ruling, but I could be wrong? And it does not mean the State HAS TO intervene, just that they can if they find the interest to do so.

Terri Schiavo could have survived for decades longer...and I am torn over that issue and always have been and this thread will be hijacked in to another topic if I go in to how I felt about it, in any kind of depth...it's a hot issue, even until this day....but for the short of it, I don't believe terri ever gave permission to have the next of kin take her off life support, so I am upset with the decision her husband made.... if this was truly Terri's will and she had a DNR in place, then her husband was following her wishes... I felt he had moved on with his life with a new family and possibly was not doing her will....but this is all speculation on my part and only God knows for sure.

ON THE OTHER HAND, it was HIS decision to make as next of kin and NOT the government's.

 

[koshergrl]

Yup babykillers believe in the inalienable right to kill any person at their mercy.

 

[Care4all]

Do you believe the mothers WHO DONATED tissue or other organs of their fetuses were not told that the procedure would be done with care, to handle the organ or tissue donation and were not made aware of any risks before they agreed to donating their fetus for medical and scientific research? I'm pretty certain the donors were well informed. If donors were never made aware of any risks then that would be wrong....there is no proof that the donor mothers were not made aware of any risks.